There is a great deal of misinformation circulating with regard to sharia and the threat it poses to America and Western Civilization.

Some misinformed observers and members of the Muslim Brotherhood liken concerns over sharia to prejudice and bigotry, but the facts say otherwise.

Terrorism experts in the law enforcement, military and intelligence communities have cited sharia as the Jihadists’ enemy threat doctrine in an intensive study called “Shariah: The Threat to America,” a scholarly, 352-page book based on authoritative sources of sharia, or Islamic law. While sharia does include “prayer and fasting” and “worship,” sharia is also an all-encompassing legal and political code that covers aspects of life that have nothing to do with religion.

Perhaps most importantly, unlike other forms of religious law, such as canon law and Jewish law, sharia is the only form of religious law extant that is also meant to apply to people of other faiths, i.e. non-Muslims.

The threat from sharia has nothing to do with prejudice or bigotry. The threat from sharia is real and multifaceted.

Some claim that sharia is no threat to the American legal system, but research shows such a threat does exist. Just as sharia has gradually become embedded in the legal systems of many European nations over the past generation, it is beginning to be found in US court cases. An initial study by the Center for Security Policy entitled “Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases,” examined 50 cases from 23 states that involved conflicts between sharia and American state law. The study’s findings suggest that sharia has entered into state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy.

This incursion of sharia into US court systems usually manifests itself in the form of foreign law from nations such as Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Syria and other predominantly Islamic nations. As a result, four states, Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona and Kansas, have passed into law “American Laws for American Courts,” legislation. Several more states are considering American Laws for American Courts. Unlike Oklahoma’s infamous constitutional amendment, American Laws for American Courts does not ban sharia. American Laws for American Courts protects individual, fundamental constitutional rights by preventing courts from applying foreign law when the application of that foreign law in the case at hand would result in the violation of a fundamental constitutional right, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process and equal protection.

Among the organizations that are clouding the issue on sharia is the Saudi-backed Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

ISNA was named as an unindicted co-conspirator and revealed to be a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate in the US v. Holy Land Foundation, the largest terrorism financing prosecution in American history.

ISNA was co-founded in 1981 by Sami Al-Arian, a man who is now in federal prison after having been convicted on terrorism charges as a member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The Center for Security Policy presented its 2012 National Security & New Media Conference and Mightier Pen Award in New York City. The theme of the conference was “Under the Gun: Reporting News in a Dangerous World,” and featured participants of this panel were: Sam Nunberg (Middle East Forum-The Legal Project), Brooke Goldstein (The Lawfare Project, author of “Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech”) and Andrew McCarthy (National Review). Moderated by the Center for Security Policy’s Fred Grandy.

Center Vice President Fred Grandy joined Jeff Katz on Talk 1200 Boston to discuss the new $3 million Shariah propaganda blitz promoted by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). Fred uncovers some of ICNA’s unsavory origins and associations

Fred Grandy warns of Interpol’s possible new role as an international enforcer of Shariah blasphemy laws. Combined with the OIC’s efforts to enforce international blasphemy laws through the UN and President Obama’s executive order 13524 the groundwork is being laid.

Should the United States raise taxes in order to continue to fund military power or should our leaders go ahead with the proposed defense budget cuts? Both US political and military leaders are at odds on this issue and remain at a stalemate as to how to develop a concrete budget plan. Should the Obama administration listen to the Tea Party’s claims that the Constitution calls for a strong defense? Frank starts today’s show sharing the microphone on topics such as these with Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy, Fred Grandy. According to recent statements made by members within the Obama administration, providing training materials to US government agencies such as the FBI that state Islam as a religion of violence is wrong. They continue to make overarching statements such as this, while ignoring the self-declared jihadists who use Islam simply as a religion of violence.

Moreover, associates at CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups continue to undermine the efforts of New York City’s counterterrorism police units. Are the President’s efforts to negotiate with local imams damaging the operations of these police forces? In order to infiltrate a neighborhood, these local law enforcement units must first consult with the local imam. How can the United States expect to run training programs against Muslim extremists, while also seeking the advice from biased Muslim community leaders? US leadership has become confused as to who is an enemy of the country.

Does the United States have a hard time understanding the 21st century battlefield where unassociated extremists in countries such as Iraq are backed by hostile governments? In a new segment here at Secure Freedom Radio, entitled The Cloakroom, Fred Grandy has the honor of having a candid discussion with Rep. Allen West about US strategies in Iraq. By removing all of our forces in Iraq, have we truly given a “green light” to Iran to begin its political and military build up in the region? Rep. West argues that America has never lost a war at the tactical level, but has shown that it can lose the overall war such as in Vietnam. If we continue to lose at the strategic level, then we will certainly lose the war in Iraq. In order to stop this from happening, does the United States need to take Rep. West’s recommendations and develop a concrete operations strategy?

Weekly commentator here and writer at the Washington Times, Bill Gertz concludes today’s show commenting on Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta’s visit to Asia. Did Panetta successfully convey the message that no matter what happens to the US defense budget, we will remain a force in the region? Furthermore, how did those in the region react to such news?

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta reportedly said Thursday that the Pentagon will slash up to $260 billion in spending in its five-year budget that will be released to Congress in February. The cuts stem from the deficit-reduction deal President Obama struck with Congress in August to reduce the defense budget by as much as $450 billion over the next decade.